Trump administration 2024-2028

[PrairieFella]

Some kinds of shit should be dealt with, and some not?

"Local law enforcement" should handle these situations, which means they must be able and willing (one of those two is not enough). Almost all US jurisdictions have enough "local law enforcement"; LA qualifies.

The mayor (Bass) wrote as this got rolling: "This morning, we received reports of federal immigration enforcement actions in multiple locations in Los Angeles. As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this."

The era of giving protestors time and space to vent violently and escalate to and beyond rioting is over, or was the concensus the last time the discussion graced these pages. Sure, there has been a change of administration since then. With the chief spokesperson for the municipal authorities appearing on the wrong side of equivocal, the governor (Newsom) should be next to step in if anyone is to act forcefully. What actions he has taken?

People are using the broad definition of "insurrection" again: "opposition to lawful process", rather than the narrower "armed uprising". The team jerseys have flipped, though, and undoubtedly the debate will turn on particular kinds of "lawful process" being included, and others not.

The administration is serious about deporting people in the country illegal, and some opponents are serious about provoking - and a few, about supporting - resistance.

Do you seriously think it's justified to call out the military into the streets because of protests? Mind you these protesters are mainly protesting against masked ICE (masks for me but not for thee) jumping iut of unmarked vans with unmarked uniforms, grabbing people and them getting gulaged in El Salvador. No one has been killed, no one has been injured beyond protesters getting shot with rubber bullets or tear gas inhalation and there has been minor property damage. It's an obvious escalation on the part of the Federal government to provoke protesters into even more rage.

 

[brihard]

Yeah, there’s been some curated clips of some disruptive street protests that frankly don’t really stand out in any way from stuff that goes on pretty regularly. There’s also been plenty of other parties pumping unrelated video onto social media to fan the flames and make this look bigger than it is. ICE seems to still be conducting operations. The Feds have tons of other law enforcement resources they can move around and use as needed. I’m not personally convinced this has risen to the point of ‘call out the army against your civilian population’.

It remains to be seen what Trump envisions the NG’s role actually being, but with these kinds of numbers it seems likely that he wants it to be ‘stick and shields vs civilian population’. That’s no bueno.

Curiously, Trump posted this last night; the NG hadn’t even actually deployed yet:



Prescient, or premeditated?

LAPD doesn’t seem convinced that this has become a massive civil emergency beyond the capacity of law enforcement:



However, the LAPD is a notoriously left-wing institution that generally sides with enabling and encouraging violent protest and disruption, so…

I’m sure Trump and his administration will co time to handle this matter maturely and calmly and will engage with all relevant parties in good faith.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Let me interject with a few observations:

Considering the LA riots of 1992 after the Rodney King arrest, if there is one city in the US where the cops know the difference between riots and a demonstration leading to some excesses, it is LA. And, from what I can see on the news, the cops in riot gear and plain uniform who are actually dealing with the excesses do appear to be LA city cops. One car or the contents of one garbage can set on fire in the middle of the street do not a riot make.

Second, while I have no problem with the usually plainclothes police officer who are the infiltrators wearing masks when a drug bust goes down, so they can continue their undercover work in the future, such niceties do not apply to ICE personnel, who have no reason to show up dressed as if they were special force and hiding their faces. This is pure and simple terror tactics on the part of the government. One of the most important right (I was going to say of an Englishman ) in common law is the right of a citizen to know exactly who the state agent interfering with his/her freedom to peacefully go about their business so that agent can be dealt with should he/she breaks the rules of propriety. Put simply, in common law (which applies in the USA), LEO have no right to hide their identity except in very limited and specific circumstances.

Finally, while I can see dangerous criminals putting up a fight against LEO, when dealing with simple immigrants going about their work to just try to earn a living, we all know that 99.9% of them willfully comply with the indications of the LEO and don't put up any fight. In raiding a Walmart (or what have you) you were not dealing with hard criminals, but with the second category. To show up with the look and the equivalent of a Company of soldiers dressed for combat, you are both provoking and terrorizing - and lets face it, that was the objective, and this further use of the National Guard is meant to increase that feeling of terror. It is unfortunate that unleashing LEO's from the legal bounds that restricts them always seem to entice a certain number of them to let their prejudices and warped view percolate to the surface in their interaction with the public.

Considering the number of immigrants - legal or illegal - that simply want to live in peace and earn a living in the USA, and the number of people who rely (some would say in some case, abuse) on them, there is now a real reign of terror going on in the US. I suggest they look at how things developed in other countries where such methods have been used.

If Americans are blind to this, I believe they will pay dearly for the lesson by the time they right the course.

 

[KevinB]

They do appear to be driving escalation.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931544808494952807

It isn’t actually unprecedented, as the ARNG were federalized without Governor request in 1965…
But the reason is extremely obvious in 1965 and it wasn’t for LE usage

 

[brihard]

U.S. NORTHCOM has confirmed that the first elements of the California National Guard 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team are now on the ground in LA to protect federal sites.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931728687772098645

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931744851374080232

At first glance, they’re working in an armed capacity. Over the course of the day we’ll presumably see more photos and videos that may give us some insight as to how integrated they are with civilian law enforcement. I’m very interested to know the legalities regarding military use of force to protect property in this sort of deployment.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

However, the LAPD is a notoriously left-wing institution that generally sides with enabling and encouraging violent protest and disruption, so…

My experience in the US is that there are Law Enforcement Agencies where the "local" cops are quite right wing and still racists that will support the Ku-Klux-Klan whenever possible but that most other Agencies, and especially the large ones in big cities (like LA), are simply much more neutral on their approach to policing and have adopted for the most part the community policing approach.

If you consider such an approach as "enabling and encouraging" violence, I think it says more about your political bias than that of the LA police force (whom I have never heard anyone else call "notoriously left-wing").

 

[brihard]

My experience in the US is that there are Law Enforcement Agencies where the "local" cops are quite right wing and still racists that will support the Ku-Klux-Klan whenever possible but that most other Agencies, and especially the large ones in big cities (like LA), are simply much more neutral on their approach to policing and have adopted for the most part the community policing approach.

If you consider such an approach as "enabling and encouraging" violence, I think it says more about your political bias than that of the LA police force (whom I have never heard anyone else call "notoriously left-wing").

My good man, feed a cup of strong coffee to your sarcasm detector.

I know I’ve been pretty open about my views of public order policing and the (mis)use of military forces in a civil capacity in my years on this website.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It sort of feels like western countries have this unique thing where non-citizens believe they have the right to live there based solely on wanting to.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My good man, feed a cup of strong coffee to your sarcasm detector.

I know I’ve been pretty open about my views of public order policing and the (mis)use of military forces in a civil capacity in my years on this website.

Sorry for missing the sarcasm. Many strong cups of coffee taken, thank you.

 

[PrairieFella]

It sort of feels like western countries have this unique thing where non-citizens believe they have the right to live there based solely on wanting to.

People in the West generally have the right to due process and not being disappeared, illegal or not.

 

[brihard]

It sort of feels like western countries have this unique thing where non-citizens believe they have the right to live there based solely on wanting to.

No, but America like most other western countries has established a fair bit of due process for making those decisions about who does and doesn’t get to, and how people get kicked out.

The current strife over immigration is partly over immigration, but more than anything in the context of the flagrant abuses of due process happening in immigration enforcement- disappearing people on overnight flights to a Salvadoran terrorism prison, or to South Sudan, and resisting judicial oversight (although most lately the executive seems to have blinked on bucking the Supreme Court).

This issue has become a lightning rod for protest against the current administration for abuse of due process more generaly, because we’re also seeing them doing it to law firms, universities, states and municipalities.

All of this remains completely in the realm of law and law enforcement, and quite frankly the disorder has been relatively minor all things considered. I just haven’t seen anything remotely close to exceeding the capacity of civilian law enforcement to deal with. The deployment of armed infantry in the streets of LA is an escalatory flex of muscle by the federal executive. It’s pouring gas on what has a lot of potential to be a fire.

 

[FJAG]

It’s pouring gas on what has a lot of potential to be a fire.

I think its worse than that. They've deliberately set the fire in order for them to have something to pour gas onto in order to excite their political base.

That would ordinarily lose them much of the centre that they had this last election cycle but, and I'm spit balling here, my guess is that in the White House the feeling is that there are already enough conservative governments in enough states to control the election cycles in their favour for a long time to come. Considering the narrow majorities in both houses, that's a risky game.

 

[Jarnhamar]

No, but America like most other western countries has established a fair bit of due process for making those decisions about who does and doesn’t get to, and how people get kicked out.

And we see Trump is changing that due process.

It's unfortunate innocent peaceful people are getting jammed up along with people like this. Maybe the US economy will suffer because of all the deportations and they'll see a reserve in policy.

 

[Eaglelord17]

It sort of feels like western countries have this unique thing where non-citizens believe they have the right to live there based solely on wanting to.

Why should citizens believe they have the right to live where they do? Just because they were accidentally born there? The only people who have earned the right to live anywhere are those who have gone through a citizenship process, everyone else it was handed to them by accident. Illegals have generally done more to earn their place in the US than someone born and raised there.

Considering the US has profited and encouraged illegal immigration for several decades it isn’t surprising that sentiment has become more common.

Both sides of the isle did nothing because they benefited from it, cheap labour which didn’t get the same rights as a American citizen, essentially replacing slave labour and allowing the US to compete economically with many 2nd and 3rd world nations in labour costs.

They literally had illegals paying taxes which meant they couldn’t receive the benefits of said taxes but were paying into the system.

Those citizens rioting/protesting don’t see them as illegals, they see them as neighbours, friends, family. In many cases they have lived/worked with them for decades. Why would they want them deported?

 

[FJAG]

And we see Trump is changing that due process.

It's unfortunate innocent peaceful people are getting jammed up along with people like this. Maybe the US economy will suffer because of all the deportations and they'll see a reserve in policy.

And it's really not that hard to create a proper due process that gets rid of the undesirables.

Simply monitor arrests for criminal offences. At whatever level a bail application is made, determine the individual's citizenship/immigration status and, if the individual is illegally in the country, add on a federal immigration process whereby the individual is detained while his criminal case proceeds and, if found guilty of the crime, or if the individual has previously been found guilty of any crime, the immigration process is automatically completed via deportation.

Add in trigger points for a level of offence where the process kicks in even for those non-citizens legally in the country.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why should citizens believe they have the right to live where they do? Just because they were accidentally born there? The only people who have earned the right to live anywhere are those who have gone through a citizenship process, everyone else it was handed to them by accident. Illegals have generally done more to earn their place in the US than someone born and raised there.

Robert Heinlein approach to citizenship. 100% behind that.

Both sides of the isle did nothing because they benefited from it, cheap labour which didn’t get the same rights as a American citizen, essentially replacing slave labour and allowing the US to compete economically with many 2nd and 3rd world nations in labour costs.

You're right. Very capitalist.

They literally had illegals paying taxes which meant they couldn’t receive the benefits of said taxes but were paying into the system.

Living in the US is a huge benefit compared to countries they come from. There's obvious reasons why people die trying to get into the country.

Yeah they're paying taxes. They're not not receiving anything in return.

Those citizens rioting/protesting don’t see them as illegals, they see them as neighbours, friends, family. In many cases they have lived/worked with them for decades. Why would they want them deported?

That's nice they don't see them as illegals. They're still illegals.

There's consequences to confronting heavily armed ICE agents and setting things on fire. If they're willing to pay then thats cool.

 

[brihard]

And we see Trump is changing that due process.

It's unfortunate innocent peaceful people are getting jammed up along with people like this. Maybe the US economy will suffer because of all the deportations and they'll see a reserve in policy.

No, he has little real power to change that due process, as it’s mostly defined by the legislative branch and reinforced by the judiciary through case law. Trump is trying to piquet and bypass due process by getting public consent to ignore it in the cases he and his administration can bring forward as the most extreme and the most unsympathetic. Ignoring the law isn’t changing it, and the courts are calling the administration out on that.

 

[Jarnhamar]

And it's really not that hard to create a proper due process that gets rid of the undesirables.

Simply monitor arrests for criminal offences. At whatever level a bail application is made, determine the individual's citizenship/immigration status and, if the individual is illegally in the country, add on a federal immigration process whereby the individual is detained while his criminal case proceeds and, if found guilty of the crime, or if the individual has previously been found guilty of any crime, the immigration process is automatically completed via deportation.

Add in trigger points for a level of offence where the process kicks in even for those non-citizens legally in the country.

That seems like a way better approach than what's currently happening.

Concentrate on violent criminals.

 

[PrairieFella]

And it's really not that hard to create a proper due process that gets rid of the undesirables.

Simply monitor arrests for criminal offences. At whatever level a bail application is made, determine the individual's citizenship/immigration status and, if the individual is illegally in the country, add on a federal immigration process whereby the individual is detained while his criminal case proceeds and, if found guilty of the crime, or if the individual has previously been found guilty of any crime, the immigration process is automatically completed via deportation.

Add in trigger points for a level of offence where the process kicks in even for those non-citizens legally in the country.

Which is literally what we do here.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

But the reason is extremely obvious in 1965 and it wasn’t for LE usage

No, no, I believe it was actually to protect some people from local law enforcement forces.